The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-10-01 - Agendas FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:501-575-8264 AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment will be held Monday, October 1, 200 1, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, AR, 72701. The following items will be considered: Approval of minutes from the meeting of September 4, 2001. Old Business: 1. Discussion item requested by Board of Adjustment chairman. Review of action taken by Board of Adjustment on June 4, 2001 concerning VAR 01-8.00: Variance (Harden, pp 610) was submitted by Roderick W. Harden for property located at 5169 Cattail Court. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.34 acres. The requirement is a 20'rear setback. The request is a 10' rear setback (a 10' variance). New Business: 2. VAR 01-22.00 Variance (Doyle, pp 399) was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Charles Doyle for property located at 4742 Dover Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front set back. The request is for 23.1' front setback(a 1.9' variance) on Dover Street and a 23.5' front setback(a 1.5 variance) on Desarc Way. 3. VAR 01-23.00 Variance(Agrawal, pp 399)was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull &Associates, Inc. on behalf of Charles Doyle for property owned by Anand Agrawal and located at 4766 Dover Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 23.35' front setback (a 1.65' variance). 4. VAR 01-24.00 Variance (Doyle, pp 399) was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Charles Doyle for property located at 4782 Dover Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 23.3' front setback (a I.Tvariance). 5. VAR 01-26.00 Variance (Bass,pp 484)was submitted by Clay Bass for property located at 327 W. Meadow. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The requirement is 25' front setback. The request is for a 19' front setback(a 6' variance). 6. VAR 01-27.00 Variance (Eldridge, pp 485)was submitted by Tim de Noble on behalf of William & Martha Eldridge for property located at 409 E. Lafayette St. The property is zoned R-1,Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The requirement is for a 30' front setback. The request is for a 19' 8" front setback (a 10'4" variance). All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data is open and available for inspection in the Office of City Planning (575-8264), City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are available for all public meetings. 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter,please call Don Bunn at 575-8330. KINCAID, HOME &DANIELS ATTORNITYS AT LAW 21 SOUTH BLOCK SUITE 100 FAYETrEVILLE,ARKANSAS 72701 TELEPHONE:(501)521-7050 DAVID B.HORNE FAX;(500 5ZI-7052 SHAWN B.DANIELS' WEBSITE;fayettevilleallawYers cOm OF COUNSEL HUGH R.KINCAID September 24, 2001 WARREN E.BANKS (1929-1987) k1r. Kit Williams City Attorney City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Sequoyah Meadows v. Harden Dear Kit: This is a follow up to my phone conversation to you earlier. As I mentioned, Mr. Rod Harden has been sent to Fort Sill, OK where he remains at present. All indications are that he will be called for active duty any day now. Although I have not yet completed my review of the Soldiers and Sailor's Relief Act, I believe that not only will the civil action that has been filed in this case be stayed but any proposed action by the City of Fayetteville would likely be stayed. I will look into this ftirther and get back with you about what I find regarding the effect of the Soldiers and Sailor's Relief Act on any type of administrative bodies. At a minimum it would seem that due process would require that he be provided notice and an opportunity to protect and defend himself even on administrative issues that may affect his rights, which obviously cannot occur if Mr. Harden is in active service in the military. I will be back in touch with you again soon. Ve furs, Shawn B. Daniels SBD:ls c:\kh&d\clients\harden\coff\williams.doc Board ofAdjustment Octoher 1, 2001 VAR01-8 Harden Page 1.1 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(501)575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Board of Adjustment FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Senior Planner THRU: Tim Conklin,A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: October 1, 2001 VAR 01-22.00 Variance (Doyle,pp 399)was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Charles Doyle for property located at 4742 Dover Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for 23.1' front setback(a 1.9' variance) on Dover Street and a 22.5' front setback (a 2.5' variance) on Desarc Way. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested 1.9' and 2.5' setback variances as shown on the attached site plan with the following condition: 1. This variance shall only apply to the existing structure and shall not be conferred on any additions or modifications to the structure in the future. Ordinance Requirement Applicant's Request Front Setback(R-1 district) 25' 23.1' (1.9' variance) Dover Street Front Setback(R-I district) 251 22.5' (2.5' variance) Desarc Way BACKGROUND: This property is located at the northwest corner of Desare Way and Dover Street in the Fieldstone Subdivision. The house at 4742 Dover Street was constructed in 2000 and finaled by the Inspection Division on 12115/00. Small portions of the structure as well as H.WSERSICOMMO",l WNTUffPORTSIBO,4110-1-01 WOYLE-4742DOVER.DOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-22 Doyle Page 2.1 roof overhangs on both frontages of this home encroach the required 251 setbacks. This building was sited too close to both street frontages at the time it was constructed. Contractor error is the reason that these variances are needed. Staff is recommending approval of the requested variances. The amount of encroachment is quite small in both instances (the larger one being 2.5'). The building has been complete for almost one year and staff has not received any complaints regarding its location on the lot. The front setback areas on this lot are not designated as utility easements. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Vacant, R-1 (recently platted phase of Bridgeport Subdivision) South: Single family homes, R-I East: Single family homes, R-1 West: Single family homes, R-1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential FINDINGS: § 156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS. Certain variances of the zoning regulations may be applied for as follows: A. General Regulations/Application. A variance shall not be granted unless and until an application demonstrates: 1. Special Conditions. That special conditions and circumstances ex ist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Finding: Unable to make finding. 2. Deprivation of Rights. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning regulations. Finding: Unable to make finding. 3. Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: The applicant is not the original builder of this structure. The variance is necessary due to contractor error at the time the foundation was set for this H.IUSERSICOMMONIDAWNYlkEPOR7S[BO,4ilO-1-01�DOYLE-4742DOVER.DOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-22 Doyle Page 2.2 structure. 4. No Special Privileges. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Zoning, Chapters 160-165, to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Finding: Granting the variance as requested with the recommended condition will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by current zoning regulations to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The use of this structure as a single family dwelling is consistent with the zoning district as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. 5. Nonconforming Uses. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Finding: No nonconforming uses were used as a basis for staff findings or recommendations. 156.02 C. Consideration by the Board of Adjustment. 1. Bulk and Area. Applications for variances of bulk and area requirements shall be considered by and may be approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held. Finding: A public hearing is scheduled for October 1,2001. 3. Findings. 'fhe Board of Adjustment shall make the following findings: a. Minimum Variance. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building, or structure. Finding: The reasons set forth in the application (see attached narrative)justify the granting of the variance and the variance is the minimum variance necessary that will make the existing structure compliant with current zoning regulations. (1.) Harmony with General Purpose. The Board of Adjustment shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general H.-IUSERSICOMMONIDAWNYIREPORIMBOAUO-]-O]IDOYLE-4742DOVER.DOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-22 Doyle Page 2.3 purpose and intent of Zoning, Chapters 160-165, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Finding: The granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Zoning, Chapters 160-165 and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. This variance is very small in relation to the required 25' front setback. Without a survey to pinpoint the encroachment, it would probably not be detected. This structure appears to be in line with other houses in the neighborhood which do comply with setback requirements. (2.) Reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Finding: Contractor error was the cause of this encroachment. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to bring the structure into compliance with current setback requirements. b. Conditions and Safeguards. In granting any variance, the Board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning regulations. Finding: Limiting this variance to the existing encroachment will safeguard against a future addition within the varied setback area. C. No Variance Allowed. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under Zoning in the district involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of the zoning regulations in said district. Finding: N/A H.,IUSERSICOMMOMDAWNnREPORTSIBOAIIO-I-OIIDOYLE-4742DOVER.DOC oard ofAdjustment OC ober 1, 2001 VAROI-22 Doyle Page 2.4 § 161.04 DISTRICT R-1: LOW C. Density. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SINGLE- TWO FAMILY A. Purpose. The Low Density FAMILY DWELLINGS Residential District is designed to permit DWELLINGS and encourage the development of low 4 or Less Families 7 or Less Families density detached dwellings in suitable Per Acre Per Acre environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. B. Uses. D. Bulk and Area Regulations. Single- Two-Family 1. Permitted Uses. Family unit I City-Wide Uses by Right Lot 70 ft. 80 ft. Minimum Unit 26 Single-Family Dwelling Width 2.Uses Permissible on Lot Area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq.ft. Appeal to the Planning Commission. Minimum Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional Land Area 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Use Permit Per Dwelling Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Unit Facilities Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational E. Yard Requirements (feet). Facilities SIDE REAR Unit 8 Single-Family and Two- YARD YARD Family Dwellings 8 20 F. Building Area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. (Code 199 1, §160.03 1) H.IUSERSICOMMOMDA WNTiREPORTSIBO.4110-1-O]IDOYLE-4742DOVER.DOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-22 Doyle Page 2.5 Variance Reque Site Address: 4742 Dover Street Lot 64 Fieldstone Addition, Phase IV Existing Structure: 2,176 sf Brick House (including garage) Variance Request: Applicant is requesting a variance of the front building setback distance of 25' from the right-of-way of Dover Street & 25' from Desarc Way. The existing house was constructed 23.1' to the roof overhang, and 24.1' to the face of the brick along Dover Street. A variance of 1.9' is being requested to the roof overhang along Dover Street. The house was constructed 22.5' to the roof overhang, and 23.5' from to the face of the brick along Desarc Way. A variance of 2.5' is being requested to the roof overhang along Desarc Way. Reason for Variance Occurance: The original builder of the house has recently passed away. Charles Doyle, his brother, has taken over and completed the construction of the house. He was unaware of the building setback violation. Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-22 Doyle Page 2.6 VARIANCE REQUEST To:The Chair of the Board of Adjustment City of Fayetteville, Arkansas We, the undersigned, being all the owners of the subject real estate for the variance request, respectively request a variance for the front building set-back line for lots 64, 65, and 66 of Fieldstone Addition, Phase IV for the following reasons: a. The houses constructed on these three lots were inadvertently constructed too close to the front building set-back line for this.subdivision, The actual set-back for the houses was not noticeable until discovered by an accurate survey. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance for the exact building set-back would be a hardship on the homeowners since the houses are already constructed and occupied. c. Construction on the houses resulting in the error on the measurement of the front building set-backs were originally done by another builder, who has since passed away. The houses were finished by the deceased builder's brother. d. The houses appear to match the building set-back of the surrounding houses in the neighborhood. Approval of this variance in the front building set-back would not cause a noticeable difference in this neighborhood. Dated this_�3 day of 41 2001 S�P_ —1 C & R Construction Co mpany, LZV3�z (Owner of Lot 64 & 66) A Anand A. Agrawal, (Owner of Lot 65) Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-22 Doyle Page 2.7 Ar-, CL 0 E .&2 uj 0 ,g zw Wz ok 6 0 0, v) v L 2 W. < 6z KO d avz-� Z) CC, 8 0 z z E 4d No- '60 w—1i IWO. r.- t 0. L6 2! 0 '0 0 , W 0 0 C) :E 02V gp -tpa 'aO ps. 00 ........... Ov", 0 2'z (Alaf,09) AVA OWSW Y) .4—M --Pul 10, .9r A�, Z5 LO Q3 < 7-1 ICE] 'Z u 17; ID L Boaral of A dy-ustmen t Ottober 1, 2001 01-22 Doyle Page 2.8 VAR 01-22.00 DOYLE Close Up View OPERTY DOVER ST DOVER S, DOVER ST DEEARC WIAY RA'FRR-K ST PATR[CK S r I�Im r---7 Overview Legend Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan VAR 01-22.00 Planning Area '5:�FreewraylExpressway Overlay District OR Principal Arterial streets ..... I-- 10'%�Minor Arterial I ity Limits Emsting C Collector Outside City Planned **%. Historic Collector 0 75 150 300 450 600 Board ofAdjustment Feet October 1, 2001 VAROI-22 Doyle Page 2.9 WPM MEN z E ANN willing was tin 1,01 i FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(501)575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Board of Adjustment FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Senior Planner THRU: Tim Conklin,A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: October 1, 2001 VAR 01-23.00 Variance (Agrawal, pp 399) was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Charles Doyle for property owned by Arland Agrawal and located at 4766 Dover Street. The property is zoned R-1,Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 23.35' front setback(a 1.65' variance). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested 1.65' setback variance as shown on the attached site plan with the following condition: 1. This variance shall only apply to the existing structure and shall not be conferred on any additions or modifications to the structure in the future. Ordinance Requirement Applicant's Request Front Setback(R-1 district) 25' 23.35' (1.651 variance) BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at 4766 Dover Street within the Fieldstone Subdivision. The structure is a single family home which was constructed in 2000 with a final inspection approved by the Inspection Division on 5111100. An I I' property line adjustment is proposed in order to remedy a setback violation on the adjoining lot to the west. Staff has required that this applicant bring a variance request to the Board of Adjustment in order to obtain a determination on the front setback B.-WERSICOMMONIDA WN71REPORTYROA 110-1-01 WGRA W,4L.DOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-23 Agrawal Page 3.1 encroachment prior to processing property line adjustments for this lot and the adjacent lot as proposed on the survey included with this request. The encroachment which is the subject of this variance request is along the front of the building facing Dover Street. The structure encroaches approximately 0.85' with a 0.8' overhang, a total encroachment of 1.65'. Comments: The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL" listed in this report are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this conditional use. Name: Date: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Vacant, R-I (recently platted phase of Bridgeport Subdivision) South: Single family homes, R-I East: Single family homes, R-1 West: Single family homes, R-1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential FINDINGS: § 156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS. Certain variances of the zoning regulations may be applied for as follows: A. General Regulations/Application. A variance shall not be granted unless and until an application demonstrates: 1. Special Conditions. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Finding: Unable to make finding. H.IUSERSiCOMMONIDAWNnMPORTSIBOAIIO-I-OIWGRAW,4L.DOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 200J VAROI-23 Agrawal Page 3.2 2. Deprivation of Rights. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning regulations. Finding: Unable to make finding. 3. Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: The applicant is not the original builder of this structure. The variance is necessary due to contractor error at the time the foundation was set for this structure. 4. No Special Privileges. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Zoning, Chapters 160-165, to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Finding: Granting the variance as requested with the recommended condition will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by current zoning regulations to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The use of this structure as a single family dwelling is consistent with the zoning district as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. 5. Nonconforming Uses. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Finding: No nonconforming uses were used as a basis for staff findings or recommendations. 156.02 C. Consideration by the Board of Adjustment. 1. Bulk and Area. Applications for variances of bulk and area requirements shall be considered by and may be approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held. Finding: A public hearing is scheduled for October 1,2001. 3. Findings. The Board of Adjustment shall make the following findings: H.-I USERMCOMMONIDA WNnREPORTSIBOA 110-1-01 W GRA WAL.DOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-23 Agrawal Page 3.3 a. Minimu m Variance. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building, or structure. Finding: The reasons set forth in the application (see attached narrative)justify the granting of the variance and the variance is the minimum variance necessary that will make the existing structure compliant with current zoning regulations. (1.) Harmony with General Purpose. The Board of Adjustment shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Zoning, Chapters 160-165, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Finding: The granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Zoning, Chapters 160-165 and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. This variance is very small in relation to the required 251 front setback. Without a survey to pinpoint the encroachment, it would probably not be detected. This structure appears to be in line with other houses in the neighborhood which do comply with setback requirements. (2.) Reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Finding: Contractor error was the cause of this encroachment. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to bring the structure into compliance with current setback requirements. b. Conditions and Safeguards. In granting any variance, the Board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning regulations. Finding: Limiting this variance to the existing encroachment will safeguard against a future addition within the varied setback area. C. No Variance Allowed. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under Zoning in the district involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of the zoning regulations in said district. Finding: N/A H.-I USERMCOMMOMDA WNYIREPORTSIBOA I 10-1-01 W GRA WALDOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-23 Agrawal Page 3.4 161.04 DISTRICT R-1: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. C. Density. A. Purpose. TheLowDensity SINGLE- TWO FAMILY Residential District is designed to permit FAMILY DWELLINGS and encourage the development of low DWELLINGS density detached dwellings in suitable 4 or Less Families 7 or Less Families environments, as well as to protect existing Per Acre Per Acre development of these types. - I I B. Uses. D. Bulk and Area Regulations. 1. Permitted Uses. Single- Two-Family Unit I City-Wide Uses by Right Family Lot 70 ft. 80 ft. Unit 26 Single-Family Dwelling Minimum Width 2.Uses Permissible on Appeal to the Planning Commission. Lot Area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq.11. Minimum Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional Use Permit Land Area 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Per Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Dwelling Facilities Unit Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities E. Yard Requirements (feet). Unit 8 Single-Family and Two- ONT SIDE REAR Family Dwellings YARD YARD 8 20 F. Building Area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. (Code 1991, §160.031) H.'IUSERSICOMMOMDAWNnREPORTS'BOAIIO-I-OIL4GR,4WAL.DOC Board ofAdjustment L October], 2001 VAROI-23 Agrawal Page 3.5 Variance Reques Site Address: 4766 Dover Street Lot 65 Fieldstone Addition, Phase IV Existing Structure: 2,216 sf Brick House (including garage) Variance Request: Applicant is requesting a variance of the front building setback distance of 25' from the right-of-way of Dover Street. The existing house was constructed 23.35' to the roof overhang, and 24.15' to the face of the brick. A variance of 1.65' is being requested to the roof overhang. Reason for Variance Occurance: The original builder of the house has recently passed away. Charles Doyle, his brother, has taken over and completed the construction of the house. He was unaware of the building setback violation. Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-23 Agrawal Page 3.6 VARIANCE REQUEST To:The Chair of the Board of Adjustment City of Fayetteville, Arkansas We, the undersigned, being all the owners of the subject real estate for the variance request, respectively request a variance for the front building set-back line for lots 64, 65, and 66 of Fieldstone Addition, Phase IV for the following reasons: a. The houses constructed on these three lots were inadvertently constructed too close to the front building set-back line for this subdivision. The actual set-back for the houses was not noticeable until discovered by an accurate survey. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance for the exact building set-back would be a hardship on the homeowners since the houses are already constructed and occupied. c. Construction on the houses resulting in the error or the measurement of the front building set-backs were originally done by another builder, who has since passed away. The houses were finished by the deceased builder's brother. d. The houses appear to match the building set-back of the surrounding houses in the neighborhood. Approval of this variance in the front building set-back would not cause a noticeable difference in this neighborhood. Dated this_!_3 day of 2001 C & R Construction Company, (Owner of Lot 64 &66) A Anand A. Agrawal, L r (Owner of Lot 65) Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-23 Agrawal Page 3.7 0 3� �z 0 gloz LLJ La 9 �.JLZ AM IS t Z. A's 9 o $3. ov . w -I— 4vs ol Z' Z< z 00 �w §252�00 a. �M45.-q -RI ZA4 E N '14:0 6 - 14 . < 3 ...... C;c 2 -v Lj LLI 0 "d 2.0 0— < Q q < 0 :E . g E; 4& . .......... A (Ald,09) AVA OWSW 'Coom-�mos.os E 3.zam.m gg > 212 -3�17 la,—... i-z tait; 2 . ..... PR > ICE] z u > cn L—,�j g 0 0 F ri 3.00 00.M Boarf ofAdjustment qctober 1, 2001 VAR 1-23 Agrawal 0 —!�l Page 3.8 VAR 01-23.00 AGAWAL Close Up View El 94 ED E IL f I co ED [:3 El ID El El 2 E El CARDWF.I.LLI 0 L) Overview Legend Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan VAR01-23.00 Planning Area '5��Freemay/Expressway Owday District ��N�Principal Arterial 5 .... z i Streets Existing Minor Arterial —1 City Limits N Collector Outside City Planned Histonc Collector Board ofAdjustment 0 75 150 300 450 600 October 1, 2001 VAROI-23 Agrawal — Page:3.9 One Mile View VIM Mill way I MR111111 go-go 1wrOMMI Ing —Mill R - Jiff m cc fin Is -all a Mill "ll fill Iffix as =WMAMMEM111, m lowilmm wl�'jg'000llon A fillillill=11111 mum go all as urn 20 MINIMUM gwl A 1m 111-111111.1m fill 1111111111,18 MOO',',VIM mom I= MOM sk I FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(501)575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Board of Adjustment FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Senior Planner THRU: Tim Conklin,A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: October 1, 2001 VAR 01-24.00 Variance (Doyle, pp 399) was submitted by A] Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates, lnc. on behalf of Charles Doyle for property located at 4782 Dover Street. The property is zoned R-1,Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 23.3' front setback(a l7variance). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested 1.71 setback variance as shown on the attached site plan with the following condition: 1. This variance shall only apply to the existing structure and shall not be conferred on any additions or modifications to the structure in the future. Ordinance Requirement Applicant's Request Front Setback(R-1 district) 25' 23.3' (1.7' variance) BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at 4782 Dover Street within the Fieldstone Subdivision. The structure is a single family home which was constructed in 2000 with a final inspection approved by the Inspection Division on 12/15/00. This structure was sited incorrectly by the contractor. An 11' property line adjustment is proposed in order to remedy a setback violation on along the east side of the property. Staff has required that this applicant bring a variance request to the Board of Adjustment in order to obtain a determination on the front setback encroachment prior to processing H.1USERSlCOMMOAWA WWREPORTYROA 110-1-01 IDOYLE-4782DOVERDOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAR01-24 Doyle Page 4.1 property line adjustments for this lot and the adjacent lot as proposed on the survey included with this request. The encroachment which is the subject of this variance request is along the front of the building facing Dover Street. The structure encroaches approximately 0.9' with a 0.8' overhang, a total encroachment of 1.71. Comments: The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL"listed in this report are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this conditional use. Name: Date: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Vacant, R-1 (recently platted phase of Bridgeport Subdivision) South: Single family homes, R-I East: Single family homes, R-1 West: Single family homes, R-1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential FINDINGS: § 156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS. Certain variances of the zoning regulations may be applied for as follows: A. General Regulations/Application. A variance shall not be granted unless and until an application demonstrates: 1. Special Conditions. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Finding: Unable to make finding. 2. Deprivation of Rights. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning regulations. 11:1USERSICOMMOMDA WNTIREPORTSIBO,4110-l-O]OOYLE-4782DOVER.DOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAR01-24Doyle Page 4.2 Finding: Unable to make finding. 3. Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: The applicant is not the original builder of this structure. The variance is necessary due to contractor error at the time the foundation was set for this structure. 4. No Special Privileges. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Zoning, Chapters 160-165, to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Finding: Granting the variance as requested with the recommended condition will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by current zoning regulations to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The use of this structure as a single family dwelling is consistent with the zoning district as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. 5. Nonconforming Uses. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Finding: No nonconforming uses were used as a basis for staff findings or recommendations. § 156.02 C. Consideration by the Board of Adjustment. 1. Bulk and Area. Applications for variances of bulk and area requirements shall be considered by and may be approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held. Finding: A public hearing is scheduled for October 1,2001. 3. Findings. The Board of Adjustment shall make the following findings: a. Minimum Variance. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. H.IUSEI?SICOMMONIDAWNnREPORTSIBOAIIO-1-011DOYLE-4782DOVER.DOC Board ofAdjustment October 1, 2001 VAROI-24 Doyle Page 4.3 Finding: The reasons set forth in the application (see attached narrative)justify the granting of the variance and the variance is the minimum variance necessary that will make the existing structure compliant with current zoning regulations. (L) Harmony with General Purpose. The Board of Adjustment shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Zoning, Chapters 160-165, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Finding: The granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Zoning, Chapters 160-165 and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. This variance is very small in relation to the required 25' front setback. Without a survey to pinpoint the encroachment, it would probably not be detected. This structure appears to be in line with other houses in the neighborhood which do comply with setback requirements. (2.) Reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Finding: Contractor error was the cause of this encroachment. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to bring the structure into compliance with current setback requirements. b. Conditions and Safeguards. In granting any variance, the Board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning regulations. Finding: Limiting this variance to the existing encroachment will safeguard against a future addition within the varied setback area. C. No Variance Allowed. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under Zoning in the district involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of the zoning regulations in said district. Finding: N/A H.IUSERSICOMMOMDA WNTREPORTSOOA�10-1-OIIDOYLE-4782DOVER.DOC Board ofAdjustment Octoher 1, 2001 VAROI-24 Doyle Page 4.4